The goal of the article is to propose a different approach to – and therefore a new concept of – the history of thinking. Reflecting on the history of philosophy, it suggests a broader understanding of the latter. Yet traditional studies in the history of philosophy are not to be rejected; they need to be reformed, and such a reform could be performed basing on the experiences of the discipline of historiography. Thus conceived, the history of thinking could open us (...) to a different future. (shrink)

In 1978 Jacques Derrida published a short text on Friedrich Nietzsche, entitled Spurs. Nietzsche’s Styles. Basing on it and on other of both authors’ writings, the article presents their understanding of truth, conceived metaphorically as a woman. The Nietzschean-Derridian concept of truth involves a mutual style of writing, therefore of thinking — since for the two philosophers language is an impassable sphere of thought. It turns out that philosophy — as an affirmation of the woman-truth — must rely on repeating (...) the existing notions and problems in new configurations, therefore on a continuous interpretation and on undertaking all over again the effort of writing. (shrink)

In this article I compare Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction. I try to demonstrate the similarities (focus on language and history), but moreover the differences between them. The core issue is the problem of the other, which appears in the works of both authors. Two perspectives are applied: concerning the notion of text (or tradition), and referring to the field of the political. Gadamer strives to communicate with the other (text) in the mutual understanding, although he has (...) no hope in finding a final sensus communis. Derrida emphasizes the difference underlying every thought, as well as situations of understanding as such. As a result, their visions of democracy differ – subtly, but essentially. (shrink)

Artykuł ma na celu wstępne przedstawienie Jacques’a Derridy jako filozofa historii. Rozwijane przezeń pojęcia okazują się wiązać z konkretną wizją dziejów. Wizja ta ujawnia się już od pierwszych tekstów Derridy i stanowi nie tyle jeden z pomniejszych wątków, ile główny temat jego myśli. W artykule skupiono się na wybranym eseju Derridy, który doprowadził do jego sporu z Michelem Foucaultem. Zestawienie tych dwóch – skądinąd obu uznawanych za poststrukturalistów – filozofów służy uwydatnieniu kluczowej roli, jaką problem historyczności pełni w dziele Jacques’a (...) Derridy. Tekst stanowi tym samym zachętę do rewizji statusu Derridy w polskiej humanistyce. (shrink)

The main purpose of this dissertation is to develop a specific perspective on the history of human thought. This goal can be achieved by critically reflecting on the dominant concept of modernity, linked with the idea of teleological and linear development, which underlies the common vision of history. The proposed approach is grounded in an in-depth analysis of the life and work of Michel de Montaigne, drawing on numerous achievements in intellectual history, conceptual history, and the history of philosophy, simultaneously (...) outlining a novel approach to the history of human thought. The first part of the dissertation revises the concept of modernity, surveys various philosophical interpretations of history (in dialogue with contemporary historiography), and finally outlines reworked notions of modernity and postmodernity. These considerations are based on discussions of history and historicity undertaken by various authors, especially Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. It is especially the latter’s contribution in this area that has been so far underestimated, especially in Poland. What emerges is an image of history as a nexus of changes, neither absolutely progressive nor regressive, occurring in three dimensions: material, linguistic, and mental. Consequently, it appears necessary to take their intertwining into account in all historical research. Contrary to what the dominant notion of modernity suggests, these intersections are in fact argued to facilitate non-dogmatic thinking in any period or moment in history. The second part of the dissertation turns to Montaigne’s Essais – a work whose publication was an exceptional event in intellectual history, which is argued to confirm the previously formulated theses. First, a theoretical construct is introduced, describing the structure of human reality, termed “the structure of authority.” It defines the system of relations that shape the existence of every human being: relations of power, knowledge, and faith. This system of relations is demonstrated using the example of the early modern era. Against this background, Montaigne appears as an author who questioned or at least attenuated the structure of authority in his time because he now appears as a modern or even postmodern writer who was ahead of his time. The first part of the thesis consists of five chapters, two directly addressing the concept of modernity (chapters 1 and 5), one discussing the concept of history (chapter 2), and two other dealing with specific concepts of history developed by Foucault and Derrida (chapters 3 and 4). The second part elaborates on the concept of the structure of authority (chapter 6), and applies it in practice to discuss the early modern period (chapter 7) when Montaigne lived and wrote. His thought is analysed in two subsequent chapters (8 and 9). The author of Essais is argued to be a coherent thinker despite the numerous contradictions found in his work, as well as the originator of the “essay” method. Discussion covers many of his concepts and ideas, as well as his political and religious views. The conclusion gathers all reflections and summarizes the results. (shrink)

Po Kartezjuszu wątpienie w istnienie Boga staje się zwolna elementem systematycznego myślenia. Wiek XVII to wyjście z ostatniego po średniowieczu stulecia, „które chce wierzyć” (Lucien Febvre), początek rewolucji naukowej i wyzwolenia od chrześcijańskich dogmatów. Taka wizja zdaje się przekonująca, potwierdzają ją pełne religijnych odniesień przednowoczesne teksty – czy jednak trzymanie się ich litery i rozwijanie na ich podstawie historii mentalności nie jest pochopne? Czy myślenie bez odwołania do Boga to specyficzne osiągnięcie nowoczesności? Polskie ujęcie filozofii wczesnonowożytnej spod znaku Leszka Kołakowskiego, (...) Stefana Swieżawskiego czy Krzysztofa Pomiana nie pozostawia wątpliwości: w epoce przednowoczesnej nie dało się myśleć o świecie, podmiocie czy wspólnocie bez Boga. Tymczasem należy wskazać na panujące przed XVII wiekiem stosunki władzy, uwarunkowania materialne (zwłaszcza wynalazek druku), sytuację wiedzy – a dalej na możliwe „sztuki działania” wbrew narzucanym schematom, w tym na zalążki pisemnego wyrażania nonkonformistycznych, groźnych dla samego autora refleksji. Każdą bowiem, nawet najszczelniej zamkniętą strukturę przebijają jej własne „linie ujścia”, każda ulega ciągłej autodekonstrukcji. Dzieje się to za pośrednictwem jednostek – dla omawianego okresu warto przyjrzeć się Mikołajowi z Kuzy, Pietro Pomponazziemu, Giordanowi Bruno i Michelowi de Montaigne. Nie dostrzegając w przednowoczesności takich jednostkowych możliwości myślenia bez Boga, a więc totalizując ją i ujednoznaczniając, reakcyjnie domagamy się jednolitości dla dzisiejszego świata. A przecież współczesność, jak i to, co ma dopiero nadejść, to zawsze różnorodność i wielość. Historia myślenia może i musi pomóc nam to rozumieć, byśmy nie popadali w – jakże nowoczesny – autorytaryzm. (shrink)

The article reconsiders a historical example of thinking about otherness. The example is the Essays by Michel de Montaigne, a piece of work from the early modern times which undermines the interpretation of the contemporary times as a modern age, i.e. supposedly more open, less dogmatic, and less hostile towards strangers. Four figures of otherness are taken into account: an infidel, a “savage,” a woman, and an animal, proving Montaigne’s particular openness. It turns out that the Essays induce a contemporary (...) man to revise his sense of historical superiority in regard to men from the previous centuries; they also let him develop a more just relationship with others of the present times. (shrink)